BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A limitation in postoperative monitoring of patients with glioblastoma is the lack of objective measures to quantify residual and recurrent disease. Automated computer-assisted volumetric analysis of contrast-enhancing tissue represents a potential tool to aid the radiologist in following these patients. In this study, we hypothesize that computer-assisted volumetry will show increased precision and speed over conventional 1D and 2D techniques in assessing residual and/or recurrent tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with native glioblastomas with MR imaging performed at 24-48 hours following resection and 2-4 months postoperatively. 1D and 2D measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists with Certificates of Added Qualification. Volumetry was performed by using manual segmentation and computer-assisted volumetry, which combines region-based active contours and a level set approach. Tumor response was assessed by using established 1D, 2D, and volumetric standards. Manual and computer-assisted volumetry segmentation times were compared. Interobserver correlation was determined among 1D, 2D, and volumetric techniques. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. Discrepancy in disease status between 1D and 2D compared with computer-assisted volumetry was 10.3% (3/29) and 17.2% (5/29), respectively. The mean time for segmentation between manual and computer-assisted volumetry techniques was 9.7 minutes and <1 minute, respectively (P < .01). Interobserver correlation was highest for volumetric measurements (0.995; 95% CI, 0.990-0.997) compared with 1D (0.826; 95% CI, 0.695-0.904) and 2D (0.905; 95% CI, 0.828-0.948) measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted volumetry provides a reproducible and faster volumetric assessment of enhancing tumor burden, which has implications for monitoring disease progression and quantification of tumor burden in treatment trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A limitation in postoperative monitoring of patients with glioblastoma is the lack of objective measures to quantify residual and recurrent disease. Automated computer-assisted volumetric analysis of contrast-enhancing tissue represents a potential tool to aid the radiologist in following these patients. In this study, we hypothesize that computer-assisted volumetry will show increased precision and speed over conventional 1D and 2D techniques in assessing residual and/or recurrent tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with native glioblastomas with MR imaging performed at 24-48 hours following resection and 2-4 months postoperatively. 1D and 2D measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists with Certificates of Added Qualification. Volumetry was performed by using manual segmentation and computer-assisted volumetry, which combines region-based active contours and a level set approach. Tumor response was assessed by using established 1D, 2D, and volumetric standards. Manual and computer-assisted volumetry segmentation times were compared. Interobserver correlation was determined among 1D, 2D, and volumetric techniques. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. Discrepancy in disease status between 1D and 2D compared with computer-assisted volumetry was 10.3% (3/29) and 17.2% (5/29), respectively. The mean time for segmentation between manual and computer-assisted volumetry techniques was 9.7 minutes and <1 minute, respectively (P < .01). Interobserver correlation was highest for volumetric measurements (0.995; 95% CI, 0.990-0.997) compared with 1D (0.826; 95% CI, 0.695-0.904) and 2D (0.905; 95% CI, 0.828-0.948) measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted volumetry provides a reproducible and faster volumetric assessment of enhancing tumor burden, which has implications for monitoring disease progression and quantification of tumor burden in treatment trials.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jessemae L Welsh; Kellie Bodeker; Elizabeth Fallon; Sundershan K Bhatia; John M Buatti; Joseph J Cullen Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Martin J van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard Ha; Eralda Mema; Xiaotao Guo; Victoria Mango; Elise Desperito; Jason Ha; Ralph Wynn; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2016-04
Authors: J Scott Cordova; Saumya S Gurbani; Chad A Holder; Jeffrey J Olson; Eduard Schreibmann; Ran Shi; Ying Guo; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Costas G Hadjipanayis Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Cecelia Elizabeth Gzell; Helen R Wheeler; Philip McCloud; Marina Kastelan; Michael Back Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: James S Cordova; Eduard Schreibmann; Costas G Hadjipanayis; Ying Guo; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Chad A Holder Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Randy S D'Amico; Justin A Neira; Jonathan Yun; Nikita G Alexiades; Matei Banu; Zachary K Englander; Benjamin C Kennedy; Timothy H Ung; Robert J Rothrock; Alexander Romanov; Xiaotao Guo; Binsheng Zhao; Adam M Sonabend; Peter Canoll; Jeffrey N Bruce Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 5.115